|10:45am||Tuesday, April 2, 2013|
Leslie Wade Miller, Plaintiff and Appellant
Jenny Lynn Miller, n/k/a Jenny Sailer, Defendant and Appellee
|Appeal from:||South Central Judicial District, Mercer County, Judge David E. Reich, 29-02-C-01059|
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Issue 1: The district court erred in failing to find a prima facia case in a situation in which:
A) the district court's total analysis consisted of only one-fact (the fifteen-year-old was not of sufficient maturity to provide a preference) in its one-sentence conclusory finding, despite the substantial factual allegations contained in the affidavits submitted by the movant and his son;
B) the district court apparently adopted the affidavits of the opposing parent whole-cloth through a one-sentence conclusory finding which ignored all other allegations made by the movant;
C) the district court erred in ruling that a prima facia case was not warranted by issuing a one-sentence conclusory finding and ignoring all other allegations made and based solely on a finding that the fifteen-year-old son did not have sufficient maturity to provide a preference that would constitute a prima facia case.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A) Should a denial of a motion to modify primary responsibility be reversed if the bulk of evidence produced is either not competent or based upon firsthand knowledge, was previously submitted, or is clearly and facially inaccurate?
B) Does a two-month trial period constitute a de facto change of primary residential responsibility such that, as a matter of law, trial court's denial of the motion to change primary residential responsibility must be reversed?
C) Must appropriate, lawful parental guidance for a troubled child require a reversal of the trial court?
D) Can the perception of the non-primary parent that his child has inadequate clothing at his house and that the primary parent insufficiently included him in the decision-making create a mandate for an evidentiary hearing for change of primary residential responsibility?
E) Does a simple assertion of slight improvement without specifics constitute a material change of circumstance?
F) Was the minor child of sufficient maturity and sound judgment for his preference to require an evidentiary hearing?
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/30/2013